block

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=false, the description's listing of mutating operations (insert, update_attribute, define) is consistent with the annotation. It adds operation-level context but does not disclose side effects, coordinate assumptions, failure behavior, or what happens when metadata is updated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with a one-line summary followed by a structured operation list. Every operation gets a single line with its data payload, and there is no filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-operation dispatch tool with a generic data field and no enums, the description provides the necessary operation vocabulary and rough data contracts. However, requiredness of fields like x/y/name is not marked, and deeper semantics for define and attribute operations are left vague.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter documentation burden, and it does so with per-operation data shapes including optional markers for scale, rotation, and block_id. It still leaves some fields under-specified, such as the entities array in define, attribute value types, and include_screenshot semantics, but the core data contracts are understandable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line scopes the tool to block definition, insertion, and attribute management, and the operation list enumerates distinct verbs such as list, insert, define, get_attributes, and update_attribute. This clearly identifies the resource and actions, distinguishing it from sibling drawing, entity, and layer tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies block-related usage through the operation list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like entity or layer. There is no exclusion guidance or comparison to alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.